Journal of Engineering Research and Studies

E-ISSN0976-7916

Research Article EFFECT OF ALKALINE ACTIVATOR ON THE STRENGTH AND DURABILITY OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE
D B Raijiwala1, H S Patil2, I U Kundan3

Address for Correspondence

Associate Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics, S V National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat, INDIA 2 Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics, S V National Institute of Technology, Surat. Gujarat, INDIA 3 PG student, Department of Applied Mechanics, S V National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat, INDIA ABSTRACT
Geopolymer concrete technology has the potential to reduce globally the carbon emission and lead to a sustainable development and growth of the concrete industry. The influence of alkaline activators on the strength and durability properties has been studied. Sodium Hydroxide is available in plenty and Potassium hydroxide is more alkaline than NaOH, both were added by the same amount (50% NaOH+50%KOH) as alkaline activators alongwith sodium silicate at varying temperatures in the preparation of geopolymer concrete. Fly ash was procured from a local thermal power station. Compression test, Split tensile test, Flexure test, Pull out test and durability test were performed. The results indicate that the combination of the above constituents at 800C has a positive impact on the strength and durability properties of geopolymer concrete. KEY WORDS Geopolymer; concrete; fly ash; alkaline solution, compressive strength.
1

1. GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE The production of one ton of cement emits approximately one ton of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere which leads to global warming conditions. A need of present status is, should we build additional cement manufacturing plants or find alternative binder systems to make concrete? On the other scenario huge quantity of fly ash are generated around the globe from thermal power plants and generally used as a filler material in low level areas. Alternative binder system with fly ash to produce concrete eliminating cement is called Geopolymer Concrete. Geopolymer is a type of amorphous aluminoHydroxide product that exhibits the ideal properties of rock-forming elements, i.e., hardness, chemical stability and longevity. Geopolymer binders are used together with aggregates to produce geopolymer concretes which are ideal for building and repairing infrastructures and for precasting units, because they have very high early strength, their setting times can be controlled and they remain intact for very long time without any need for repair. The properties of geopolymer include high early strength, low shrinkage, freeze-thaw resistance, sulphate resistance and corrosion resistance. These high-alkali binders do not generate any alkali-aggregate reaction. The geopolymer binder is a low-CO2 cementious material. It does not rely on the Calcination of limestone that generates CO2. This technology can save up to 80% of CO2 emissions caused by the cement and aggregate industries. 2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM In this work, low-calcium (ASTM Class F) fly ashbased geopolymer is used as the binder, instead of Portland or other hydraulic cement paste, to produce concrete. The fly ash-based geopolymer paste binds the loose coarse aggregates, fine aggregates and other un-reacted materials together to form the geopolymer concrete, with the presence of admixtures. The manufacture of geopolymer concrete is carried out using the usual concrete technology methods as in the case

of OPC concrete in Applied Mechanics laboratory of S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat. The silicon and the aluminium in the low-calcium fly ash react with an alkaline liquid that is a combination of sodium Hydroxide and Potassium Hydroxide solutions to form the geopolymer paste that binds the aggregates and other un-reacted materials. 2.1Materials: Geopolymer concrete can be manufactured by using the low-calcium (ASTM Class F) fly ash obtained from coal-burning power stations. Most of the fly ash available globally is low-calcium fly ash formed as a by-product of burning anthracite or bituminous coal. Commercial grade Potassium Hydroxide in pallets form (97% -100% purity) and sodium Hydroxide solution (Na2O=18.2%, SiO2=36.7%, Water = 45.1%) were used as the alkali activators. The potassium Hydroxide pallets were dissolved in the required amount of water according to the desired molarity. Local clean river sand (fineness modulus of medium sand equal to 2.50) conforming to grading zone III of IS-383-1970 was used. Locally available well graded aggregates of normal size greater than 4.75 mm and less than 12mm were used. Note that the mass of water is the major component in both the alkaline solutions. For improving the workability of the concrete, a naphthalene sulphonate superplasticiser was used. 2.2 Mixture Proportions The different mixture proportions used to make the trial geopolymer concrete specimens in this study are given in Table 1. Table 1 Mixing proportion
Ingredients Temperature Fly ash Fine Aggregates Coarse Aggregates 10Dn NaOH(50%)+ M25 KOH(50%) Mix Room 0 C 60, 80, 100 Temp. 400 400 kg/m3 (Cement) Unit kg/m3 505 563

kg/m3

442

493

JERS/Vol. III/ Issue I/January-March, 2012/18-21

20 Dn Alkaline solution/FA Hydroxides/Sodium silicate Sodium Hydroxide(NaOH)/Potassium Hydroxide (KOH) Sodium Hydroxide solution Potassium hydroxide solution Sodium silicate solution Extra water Plasticizer

kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m

3

663 0.5 0.85 1 46 46 108 8

740 0.5 W/C ratio 200 8

kg/m3 kg/m
3

3. TESTS CONDUCTED a) Compression test, b) Split tensile test, c) Flexure test, d) Pull out test e) Durability test 3.1) Compressive strength Compressive strength test was carried out in concrete cubes of size 150x150x150mm using 1:1:2 mix with W/C ratio of 0.50. Specimens with ordinary Portland cement concrete (control) were removed from the mould after 24h and subjected to water curing for 1,7, 14 and 28 days. The geopolymer concrete specimens were prepared according to the method followed by Hardjito et. al. [2]. Geopolymer cubes of 12M were cast . During moulding, the cubes were mechanically vibrated. The specimens were wrapped by plastic sheet to prevent loss of moisture and placed in an oven. Since the process needs curing at high temperature, the specimens were cured at three different temperatures of 600 C, 800C and 1000C for 24 h in the oven. They were then left at open air (room temperature 250C) in the laboratory until testing. Tests were carried out on triplicate specimens and average compressive strength values were recorded. 3.2) Split tensile test Split tensile test was carried out as per ASTM C49690. Concrete cylinders of size 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height were cast using 1:1:2 mix with W/C ratio of 0.50. Specimens with OPC and GPC at 12M were cast. During moulding, the cylinders were mechanically vibrated using a table vibrator. After 24h, the OPC specimens were removed from the mould and subjected to water curing for 1,7, 14 and 28 days. The GPC specimens were wrapped by plastic sheet to prevent the loss of moisture and placed for curing at 600C, 800C and 1000C in the oven for 24h. They were then left at open air (room temperature 250C) in the laboratory until testing. Tests were carried out on triplicate specimens and average split tensile strength values were recorded. 3.3) Flexure test Central point loading was used for the determination of flexural strength of concrete. Specimens of size

100x100x500mm were casted using 1:1:2 mix with W/C of 0.50. During moulding, the beams were mechanically vibrated. Specimens with OPC and GPC at 12M were cast. After 24h, the OPC specimens were removed from the mould and subjected to water curing for 7, 14 and 28 days. The GPC specimens were wrapped by plastic sheet to prevent the loss of moisture and placed for curing at 600C, 800C and 1000C in the oven for 24h. They were then left at open air (room temperature 250C) in the laboratory until testing. Loading was applied at the rate of 400kg/min. Tests were carried out on triplicate specimens and average flexural strength values were recorded. 3.4) Pull out test Pull out test was carried out as per IS 2770-1967Part-1. Cold twisted deformed bars of 12 mm diameter and 450mm long were used for steel-concrete bond strength determination. The rod was placed centrally along with helical reinforcement provided in the centre of the concrete cube of size 100x100x100 mm using a concrete mix of 1:1:2 with W/C ratio equal to 0.50. Specimens with OPC and GPC at 12M were cast. The bar is projected down for a distance of about 10mm from the bottom face of the cube as cast and projected upward from the top up to 300mm height in order to provide an adequate length to be gripped for application of load. During casting of concrete cubes, the moulds were mechanically vibrated. The OPC cubes were removed from the mould after 24h and then cured for 28 days with complete immersion in distilled water. The GPC cubes were wrapped by plastic sheet to prevent the loss of moisture and placed for curing at 600C, 800C and 1000C in the oven for 24h.They were then left at open air (room temperature 250C) in the laboratory until testing. After the curing period was over the steel-concrete bond strength was determined using Universal Testing Machine of capacity 60t. The bond strength was calculated from the load at which the slip was 0.25 mm. Tests were carried out in triplicate specimens and average bond strength values were obtained. 3.5) Durability test Acid resistance test was performed to determine the durability of samples. The 150x150x150 mm geopolymer concrete specimens were prepared and cured in saturated lime water. After curing for 28 days, the specimens were taken out to measure the initial weights, and then transferred to 3% solution of hydrochloric (HCl) acid. The parameters investigated were the time and weight loss of fully immersed concrete specimens in the acid solution. The measurements of weight loss were performed at the age of 1, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 56 days. Three concrete specimens were tested for each data. 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The tables and graphs of all the tests performed are given below. From the tables, it can be seen that the geopolymer concrete cured at 800C gives the best results. The values are much higher than OPC. Also, it can be seen that 1 day strength of GPC is much more

Journal of Engineering Research and Studies than OPC on all the experiments performed because of curing at higher temperatures. Later on the strength increases at room temperature possibly because of polymerization process but the actual reason is not known. Also, at temperatures higher than 800C, the strength of all tests is not found to increase. Hence, 800C can be thought of as an optimum temperature for curing the geopolymer samples. Table 2: Compressive strength

E-ISSN0976-7916

Fig 3: Flexural strength of OPC and GPC Table 5: Pull out strength

Fig1: Comp. strength of OPC and GPC Table 3: Split tensile strength Fig 4: Pull out strength of OPC and GPC Table 6: Durability test

Fig 2: Split tensile strength of OPC and GPC Table 4: Flexural strength

Fig 5: % Loss in weight for OPC and GPC 5.0 CONCLUSION Compressive strength of GPC increases over controlled concrete by 1.5 times (M-25 achieves M-45) 1. Split Tensile Strength of GPC increases over controlled concrete by 1.45 times.

JERS/Vol. III/ Issue I/January-March, 2012/18-21

Flexural Strength of GPC increases over controlled concrete by 1.6 times. 3. In Pull Out test, GPC increases over controlled concrete by 1.5 times. 4. In Durability test, there is decrease in weight loss by 10 times (At 56 days % loss in weight has reduced from 5.66% to 0.60%). 5. It has been observed that at 12 molarity of KOH, the gain in strength remains very moderate and the reason is at an ambient temperature of 60C for 24 hours the polycondensation process has already completed and particle interface is also achieved. REFERENCE
1. Steenie Edward Wallah, Drying Shrinkage of HeatCured Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete, Modern Applied Science, Vol-3, No-12, December-2009 2. Hardjito D., and Rangan B. V., Development and Properties of Low Calcium fly ash- based Geopolymer Concrete, Research Report GC 1, Faculty of Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia, 2009 3. Hardjito D., and Rangan B. V., Development and Properties of Low Calcium fly ash- based Geopolymer Concrete, Research Report GC 2, Faculty of Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia, 2009 4. Thokchom S., Ghosh P. and Ghosh S., Performance of Fly ash Based Geopolymer Mortars in Sulphate Solution, Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review 3 (1) (2010) 36-40, 24 February 2010. 5. Thokchom Suresh, Dr. Ghosh Partha and Dr. Ghosh Somnath, Acid Resistance of Fly ash based Geopolymer mortars, International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 6, May 2009. 6. Thokchom Suresh, Dr. Ghosh Partha and Dr. Ghosh Somnath, Resistance of Fly Ash based Geopolmer Mortars in Sulfuric Acid, ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences , VOL. 4, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2009. 7. Rangan Vijaya B., Studies on Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete, Malaysian Construction Research Journal, Vol-3, No.-2, 2008 8. Frantiek kvra, Josef Doleal, Pavel Svoboda, Lubomr Kopeck, Simona Pawlasov, Martin Lucuk, Kamil Dvoek, Martin Beksa, Lenka Mykov, Rostislav ulc, Concrete based on fly ash geopolymers 9. Balaguru P., Stephen Kurtz, and Jon Rudolph, Geopolymer for Repair and Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Beam, Geopolymer Institute 1997. 10. Thokchom Suresh, Ghosh Partha and Ghosh Somnath, Effect of Na2O Content on Durability of Geopolymer Mortars in Sulphuric Acid, International Journal of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 2:1 2009 11. Alonso, S. and A. Palomo, Alkaline Activation of Metakaolin and Calcium Hydroxide Mixtures: Influence of Temperature, Activator Concentration and Solids Ratio. Material Letters, 2010. 47(1-2): p. 5562. 12. Cheng, T.W. and J.P. Chiu, Fire-resistant Geopolymer Produced by Granulated Blast Furnace Slag. Minerals Engineering, 2008. 16(3): p. 205-210. 13. Davidovits, J. Properties of Geopolymer Cements. in First International Conference on Alkaline Cements and Concretes. 2005. Kiev, Ukraine, 2009: SRIBM, Kiev State Technical University.

2.

14. Greer, W.L., Johnson, M. D., Morton, E.L., Raught, E.C., Steuch, H.E. and Trusty Jr., C.B., Portland Cement, in Air Pollution Engineering,2008. 15. Hardjito, D., et al., On The Development of Fly AshBased Geopolymer Concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 2008. 101(6). 16. Malhotra, V.M., Making Concrete "Greener" With Fly Ash. ACI Concrete International, 2000. 21(5): p. 61-66. 17. Malhotra, V.M., Introduction: Sustainable Development and Concrete Technology. ACI Concrete International, 2005. 24(7): p. 22. 18. Manual, Anthony J. Buonicore and Waynte T. Davis (eds.). . 2000, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 19. Mehta, P.K., Reducing the Environmental Impact of Concrete. A Concrete International, 2003. 23(10): p. 61-66.